D&D 5E (2024) A critical analysis of 2024's revised classes

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In any event, player's get to choose what they play. If someone chooses a fighter, it is usually because they want a simpler play experience and they often do not want to deal with the work required of being a caster. It always feels that those who make these arguments about the fighter are folks who are upset that they lack complexity. I think that is a feature. A fighter is a great entry level class.

But what if the player wants to play a mage? He just happens to want a simple mage?
And what if the complex character enjoyer is tired of always playing spellcasters and really would like the flavor of playing a great warrior?

One of the reasons I liked 4E so much was that it finally offered the complex warrior. In 3E I always tried to play a Fighter that has plenty of combat options, carefully optimizing my ability scores within 25 point buy that I could go down the Combat Expertise route and be a trip/disarm/sunder expert and do fun stuff in combat other than hacking at it. I also played plenty of spellcasters (my longest one probably a Kobold Sorceror) or complex hybrids (Druid/Shifter for example).

Of course, the "complex warrior" doesn't have to be the Fighter class. And it's nice if there are options for simple and complex character enjoyers, even if it's a nightmare to balance...

 

[Belen]

But what if the player wants to play a mage? He just happens to want a simple mage?
And what if the complex character enjoyer is tired of always playing spellcasters and really would like the flavor of playing a great warrior?

One of the reasons I liked 4E so much was that it finally offered the complex warrior. In 3E I always tried to play a Fighter that has plenty of combat options, carefully optimizing my ability scores within 25 point buy that I could go down the Combat Expertise route and be a trip/disarm/sunder expert and do fun stuff in combat other than hacking at it. I also played plenty of spellcasters (my longest one probably a Kobold Sorceror) or complex hybrids (Druid/Shifter for example).

Of course, the "complex warrior" doesn't have to be the Fighter class. And it's nice if there are options for simple and complex character enjoyers, even if it's a nightmare to balance...

I think it is fine to have a complex warrior and I'd support a new class balanced around it. I have built one around a blademaster myself.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it is fine to have a complex warrior and I'd support a new class balanced around it. I have built one around a blademaster myself.

Any class-based fantasy game should offer a simple warrior, a simple mage, a complex warrior, and a complex mage. Player preferences for simple vs complex and martial vs caster have no correlation.

 

[Lanefan]

Because ideas should have value? I should think that obvious.

Your description teaches a lesson: Never be the ideas guy. Always be the action guy. Ideas guys get left in the dust. Action guys get money, power, and fame. Hence, never be the ideas guy. It is always to your advantage to be 100% action, all the time.

To a certain point, that's very intentional: I want to encourage characters who take risks and discourage characters who sit back and let - or worse, expect - others take risks. To a lesser extent, I also want to reward active players over passive players.

Like this is pretty much literally the Prisoner's Dilemma. A "rational" actor would always choose to be the action guy because it actually gives rewards, while being ideas guy gives you diddily squat. Doesn't matter that you're much more likely to die and lose it all. So you get a structure which actively cultivates disruptive behavior and discourages planning or creative thinking, just always go in guns blazing before someone else beats you to it.

Being ideas guy is useful but IME the "ideas guy" character also tends to be the character who sends other people out to act on those ideas: "We really should scout around the back and make sure there's no unexpected surprises. Challimee, as you're the stealthiest we have how about you do that? We'll wait here.".

Thus, even though Ideas Guy thought to do the scouting (and for these purposes let's say this is a legitimately good idea), all the risk of actually doing said scouting accrues to Challimee.

Put another way, it's her butt on the line if - and note the "if" here - any serious danger (e.g. several vicious guard dogs) awaits around the back; by the time any help can arrive she'll either be victorious, fleeing, or dead. Why should Ideas Guy get rewarded when all he in fact did was send someone else into potential danger?

As for your all-guns-blazing concern, that self-solves fairly quickly on its own once they get thrashed a few times and come to realize that some caution and planning might in fact be a good idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait, so you introduced a house-rule that directly goes against 5e14 and 2e24 rules and design and you're using that baseline to argue that something in the game is badly designed?

That it goes against 5e rules in any version is irrelevant to me. My discussion of xp awarding is edition-agnostic.

That said, IMO 5e has some serious-to-the-point-of-fatal flaws in the way it does some things and how it handles xp and levelling is one of them.

 

[Lanefan]

that is one problem, but it is also a solution,
it's easier to balance things and plan if you know for 100% that the spell will take effect.

Hell, even if we get rid of saving throws, we could get even more balance(but not necessary a better game).

IE:
Hold person: effect lasts for 5 rounds, minus your Wisdom modifier, minimum of 1 round.

Entangle: effect lasts for 10 rounds, minus twice your STR mod, minimum of 1 round

Fireball: reduce damage by DEX mod per spell level of fireball, minimum of 3 damage per spell level.
(evasion: add +5 to your effective dex mod for avoiding spells/traps, damage can be reduce to zero)

While easier to balance, I agree that wouldn't make for a better game.

or we can go back on 1-round casting spells, like some 3.5e spells(summons), but with addition that you do not waste a spell slot if you are unable to finish casting because of lost concentration saves.

or have ALL spells with saves(single target) that if target saves, you do not spend a spell slot, but spell has no lesser effect if the target saves. This can also go for single target attack spells. All or nothing on a miss/save.
kind of like Reliable powers of 4E.

This isn't harsh enough.

Simply starting to cast a spell should blow the slot, even if you don't or can't finish or if the target saves.

 

[Lanefan]

Any class-based fantasy game should offer a simple warrior, a simple mage, a complex warrior, and a complex mage. Player preferences for simple vs complex and martial vs caster have no correlation.

That, and IME players can take the simplest class and make it hella complex just by how they play the character or what they do with it.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Why?

It's a risk-reward paradigm, where taking risk = gaining reward (in this case, xp) and no risk = no reward.

I'm taking a risk by playing a high-level fighter instead of a high-level wizard. Where's my reward?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As for your all-guns-blazing concern, that self-solves fairly quickly on its own once they get thrashed a few times and come to realize that some caution and planning might in fact be a good idea.

Except it doesn't. That's precisely my point. It won't be "fixed" by that, because it's always valuable to defect, in the Prisoner's Dilemma way of describing it.

There's never any value to being the ideas guy when someone else acts on it. Hence, creative ideas are punished, while acting out as soon as possible is at least potentially rewarded. When one path offers literally no value to you but still includes peril, while the other includes more peril but at least a chance of reward, the "rational" choice is always to pursue the possible reward even if you're more likely to fail than succeed.

Like think about the usual Prisoner's Dilemma. You have two suspects who both robbed a bank, but the case against them isn't very strong. Without a plea bargain, the best they can do is resisting arrest, say two years in prison for each suspect. Buuuut...if one of them talks, then they'll be offered clemency, no prison time at all, unless both talk. So you get a cost chart like this...

	A stays quiet	A defects
B stays quiet	Both 2 years	A 0 yr, B 8 yrs
B defects	A 8 yrs, B 0 yr	Both 5 years

If you assume the other person would never defect, you can get 0 years prison time by defecting, which is better than 2 years. And if you assume the other person has already defected, then you can cut your own sentence by also defecting, and prevent them getting off scott free for their betrayal. Even though this is the worst outcome for all parties, where they collectively spend more time in prison than any other option, it is also the one and only equilibrium for this situation.

The exact same applies to ideas vs action in the situation you've described. Both players work on ideas? 0% profit, X% peril. Beat the other player to acting on their idea? Y% profit, (X+Z)% peril. As long as that peril percentage isn't 100%, it's always better to defect, because the former station results in no payout but inevitable peril eventually. And then if both go all action no thought, it becomes (Y-W)% profit (split between the two), but less than (X+Z)% peril, because you're at least partially dividing the effort, and thus the risk, even if the difference is very small.

Hence, no, it won't be fixed over time. The reward structure actually encourages this behavior to get worse, not better.

Unless, of course, there are more rewards you haven't told us about which actually are given for sometimes taking one for the team and being an ideas guy that helps others come up with a great plan, coordinates, and facilitates, even though that means screwing yourself out of any actual rewards for your contributions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Oddly enough, as far as classes it is seems only Fighters that cause this reaction, other martials and other weakish non-casters like Rogues, Barbarians or 2014 Monks don't seem to generate as much anger as Fighters do, even though they are weaker than Fighters. People complain about Rangers a lot too, but not with the same anger as they do about Fighters IME.

I’ve often wondered about this. Fighters have always been one of the stronger classes in 5e, yet any thread about martial/caster balance tends to focus on them.

I am also struck by how much those discussions tend to focus on top tier abilities, despite those being a negligible part of the game, more aspirational than anything else. Like, sure, a wizard can potentially get wish, but they are highly unlikely to ever get close to it.

Yeah, I’m not sure what is up with that. It’s pretty notable in thread after thread. It’s especially surprising since the 2024 rules came out; they were extremely good to fighters.

The "Martials/Casters divide often tended to use Fighters vs. Wizards since both were representative of each archetype in 2014. They had equivalent skills (until 2024 let fighters burn second winds to boost them and Wizards got Expertise) and both had subclasses which granted some of the capability of the other to a lesser (Eldritch Knight), or greater (Bladesinger) extent.

2024 has made things somewhat fuzzier: Grappling is less effective as a strategy, but weapon mastery more than makes up for it on the martial side. In 2014 Casters were demonstrably better with skills than non-rogue martials, but now Martials have the edge in most ability checks, if they're willing to spend their resources and the casters aren't.
Direct comparison between the martials and casters generally required a champion of each to be selected to butt heads, and this was usually the fighter and the wizard representing their respective sides. In 2024 I think that it has been solidly established that most fighters perform better than most wizards at low levels, with the difference reducing as the game reaches the usual end point at Level 11, and as long as only single target damage is being compared. Trying to compare performance in other aspects of the game is complicated by being harder to reduce down to a simple comparable number on each side.
Unfortunately it is in the aspects of the game other than DPR that the martial/caster divide lies.

In any event, player's get to choose what they play. If someone chooses a fighter, it is usually because they want a simpler play experience and they often do not want to deal with the work required of being a caster. It always feels that those who make these arguments about the fighter are folks who are upset that they lack complexity. I think that is a feature. A fighter is a great entry level class.

. . . or the fighter player wants to play a character concept all about martial skill rather than magic and is unaware of, or just willing to take the hit to mechanical effectiveness and versatility, to allow them to play it.
Its a popular concept: Fighters were a popular choice even in 3e, where I don't think that many people would argue that they weren't overshadowed.